Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 09, 2014

Bobby V says he suspected juicing on mid-80’s Rangers

Looks like The Steroid Era included at least the last 9 seasons of Jack Morris’s career.
Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:50 PM | 55 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bobby valentine, rangers, ruben sierra, steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 09, 2014 at 09:55 PM (#4635328)
Argh! Where's the excerpt from TFA?

When asked if he knew of any players using PEDs during his years as a major league manager, Valentine first said “I don’t think so,” but then segued to a specific incident during his time in Texas.

“My first thought, inkling, was back in the mid-1980s when Ruben Sierra came to my spring training and he had gained 30 pounds over the winter and I didn’t think he was a big weight-lifter. So, I tried to figure it out, investigate it, and then people told me it wasn’t some place I should be, so I never even looked again. If it was ever brought up, to tell you the truth, I said, please, bring it up in my presence.”

When asked by Roberts who, specifically, told him to back off, the organization or Sierra’s people, Valentine responded, “Whomever, it was a long time ago.”
   2. Bob Tufts Posted: January 09, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4635338)
From Dallas Observer and Richie Whitt, 2/10/2009

First time I made the connection between steroids and baseball was the spring of 1990. Ruben Sierra, coming off a season in which he was second in MVP voting, arrived with a bulked-up body that looked more Lou Ferrigno than Lou Brock. Seriously, the dude gained 30 pounds of muscle.
   3. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 09, 2014 at 10:37 PM (#4635346)
I now know for sure of one place in baseball where steroids definitely weren't present: The mid-80s Texas Rangers.
   4. Publius Publicola Posted: January 09, 2014 at 10:56 PM (#4635358)
There seems to be a timeframe discrepancy between Valentine and Whitt. V is saying mid-eighties and Whitt is saying 1990. Of course, Valentine managed them a long time and may not remember exactly what year. Whitt's statement seems to be a little more definitive but then another problem arises. The observation of extra bulk came after Sierra's power surge, not before.
   5. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4635375)
FWIW according to this April 1990 SI article Sierra was 6'1, 210:

And consciously or not, when he bats righthanded. Sierra evokes Clemente. It is not a duplicate image: Clemente wielded a fat-handled 36-ounce bat, Sierra swings a 32; Clemente had an aggressive, nearly lunging swing, Sierra's is less exaggerated. At 6'1", 210 pounds. Sierra has Clemente by two inches and 35 pounds. Still, as Mayoral says, "Put him in a Pirates uniform and stand 150 feet away, and it would be scary."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136955/index.htm


And as the article points out his breakout year was 1989 (not 1990). In fact his career year and career high in home runs was 1989:

Last year was his breakthrough season. He hit 29 home runs and batted .306.


B-R, again for whatever it's worth, lists him at 6'1, 175.
   6. Lars6788 Posted: January 09, 2014 at 11:27 PM (#4635377)
The extra bulk doesn't exactly mean he didn't have the ability to hit for power already - it's just he came into camp bigger one year.

People also 'misremember' things when their telling stories - maybe it's not the right way to go about things, but the little details isn't as important as what the person is trying to say - so Valentine may say it's the mid 1980's when he probably means the late 1980's or early 1990's.
   7. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4635381)
Gammons, April 1989;

Now they wait for outfielders Ruben Sierra and Pete Incaviglia to blossom. The 23-year-old Sierra has at least beefed up; he added 23 pounds of muscle over the winter and vows, "This season's going to be different."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1068243/index.htm


Looks like Valentine is pretty much recalling correctly.

And of course we saw a billion "this player has bulked up, best shape of his life" stories over the years. Looking back it's clear they were all getting into training and weight lifting and - hide the children - steroids.
   8. Ray K Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:12 AM (#4635409)
Good catch, Ray.
   9. Repoz Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:49 AM (#4635423)
In 1989 Sierra hit 21 HR's at Arlington Stadium and 8 on the road.

Airport security is a biitch!
   10. Chip Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:56 AM (#4635426)
Now 29 HRs is a tell.

We're all going to have to recalibrate our Obvious Steroid Candidate detectors.
   11. dejarouehg Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:10 AM (#4635432)
B-R, again for whatever it's worth, lists him at 6'1, 175.


This is one area B-R doesn't spend a lot of time updating throughout a player's career.

Bonds 185 lbs. McGwire 215.

Now 29 HRs is a tell. We're all going to have to recalibrate our Obvious Steroid Candidate detectors.


Just wondering.....so you think Sierra didn't take?
   12. ckash Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:00 AM (#4635474)
I thought steroids were always a suspicion for Sierra because of the massive off-season weigh gain and the fact that his newfound bulkiness slowed his bat speed dramatically. Too busy getting the youngest ready for the bus to check but I'm positive I've read that somewhere.
   13. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:46 AM (#4635479)
I definitely recall the offseason when Sierra bulked up. I think whatever he gained in strength, he lost by losing his explosiveness so it was a wash offensively and turned him into a crap defensive outfielder.
   14. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:00 AM (#4635482)
Just wondering.....so you think Sierra didn't take?

I remember the Fenway bleacher bums chanting "Steroids, Steroids,...." at Sierra in the 1992-94 time-frame (he was playing for Oakland).
   15. Lassus Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:06 AM (#4635485)
Just wondering.....so you think Sierra didn't take?

I think a better question is where do you consider the line to be where someone is naive and stupid to think that someone didn't take? Is it the power of Paul LoDuca? Or any of the other also-rans from the Mitchell Report? I'm sure plenty of guys bigger and better than those guys never took. What about them?

You cannot tell, no one can, and I think most of the argument is that it's pointless to pretend you can, so the presumption of guilt over the presumption of innocence makes everyone smaller and gross. Everyone making the presumption, that is.
   16. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4635487)
I don't know how many juicers there were in the Rangers of the 80's, but I've always suspected that most of those storied "born again" Rangers of the 90's were secretly practicing secular humanism while Johnny Oates wasn't looking.
   17. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:12 AM (#4635489)
If Bobby Valentine says that steroids were being used in the 80s I'm willing to believe that steroids weren't invented until the 90s.
   18. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4635493)
multiple rangers were subject to rumor in that time period

sierra
correa
incaviglia
   19. JE (Jason) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4635498)
I remember the Fenway bleacher bums chanting "Steroids, Steroids,...." at Sierra in the 1992-94 time-frame (he was playing for Oakland).

Yes, but what did the Bleacher Creatures think?
   20. BDC Posted: January 10, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4635518)
Sierra's career high in home runs was 30, at the age of 21, in 1987: and back then, he really was just a slip of a thing.

I'll defer to Ray's citation of Gammons, but if Sierra did bulk up a bit before 1989, he did so all the more before 1990. He was reportedly stung at losing the MVP vote (narrowly) to Robin Yount in '89. But after that his power gradually went to hell, too, even though the league was hitting more home runs and he was getting older and stronger.

Just goes to show the futility of correlating steroid suspicion to a player's record. (A) It's possible to hit home runs if you are a relatively slender guy; (B) It's possible to put on weight and muscle on good old meat and potatoes; (C) It's possible to look like the Hulk and fail to hit home runs.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4635553)
Yes, but what did the Bleacher Creatures think?

I don't think they were a thing in 1993.
   22. bunyon Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4635555)
At a baseball camp sometime in the 80s, I remember Inky talking passionately about the importance of weight lifting, training and "the proper nutrition and diet". He was massive and, yes, had some backne.

There, I feel dirty. I mean, I had backne. And frontne. And facene. We were kids.
   23. AROM Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4635560)
The observation of extra bulk came after Sierra's power surge, not before.


There was no Ruben Sierra power surge. His homeruns per 600 AB:

1986 25
1987 28
1988 22
1989 27

His rookie baseball card shows a guy whose listed 6'1 175 dimensions are probably accurate. He was a 20 year old who hit 16 homers in 2/3 of a season. The next few years he bulked up, played everyday, and hit homeruns at pretty much the exact same rate.

If Sierra's record is indicative of the effect of steroids then steroids are the baseball equivalent of cocaine. Sierra's got the same record of great early career, bottoming out in what should be his prime, and a nice recovery in his later years that Dave Parker has. Though at a lower level - Parker was better.
   24. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4635565)
As someone who weightlifts/works out semi-seriously it's hilarious to hear some of these stories about what can and can't be done with the human body in terms of physical transformations. It's also really funny to hear about Ruben Sierra looking like Lou Ferrigno at 6'1'' and allegedly 215lbs. Sometimes, I just want to ask...do you even lift bro?
   25. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4635571)
arom

all of the chatter around sierra and correa was because they LOOKED physically different. they went from sleek guys to not just stronger looking but somewhat cartoonish

   26. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4635573)
and both were used as examples of why 'weight lifting' doesn't work for baseball. that they got 'all tied up' whatever the h8ll that means
   27. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4635574)
My first thought, inkling, was back in the mid-1980s when Ruben Sierra came to my spring training and he had gained 30 pounds over the winter and I didn’t think he was a big weight-lifter. So, I tried to figure it out, investigate it, and then people told me it wasn’t some place I should be, so I never even looked again. If it was ever brought up, to tell you the truth, I said, please, bring it up in my presence.”



Doesn't Sparky Anderson tell the same story about Lance Parrish in like '86 or '87 but without the PED suspicion?

Brian Downing is another guy that mid-career took weight training seriously and bulked up, but that was back in the early 80s.
   28. The Good Face Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4635595)
As someone who weightlifts/works out semi-seriously it's hilarious to hear some of these stories about what can and can't be done with the human body in terms of physical transformations. It's also really funny to hear about Ruben Sierra looking like Lou Ferrigno at 6'1'' and allegedly 215lbs. Sometimes, I just want to ask...do you even lift bro?


There are a lot of folks here who have no idea what they're talking about with respect to weight training, but as a general rule, a strong, athletic 180lb guy cannot add 30 pounds of lean muscle in 6 months without chemical help. A good buddy of mine is an amateur bodybuilder who does not use steroids, HGH, etc. I watched him go from a skinny 6'1, 140lbs to ~200 pounds of sculpted muscle and it took over 5 years. Everybody's body is different, and some folks have the genetics that allow them to pile muscle on faster than others, but some of the gains ballplayers have reported/shown up with are pretty suspicious.
   29. youneverknow47 Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4635609)
Made me immediately think of the Canseco for Sierra and change trade. I still remember where I was. It was almost a Kennedy assassination moment for kids who grew up thinking the 1986 rookie class was going to be...well, better than most of them turned out at least
   30. AROM Posted: January 10, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4635669)
The AL rookie class got all the headlines that year. The NL class has the HOFer (Larkin) and the GOAT (Bonds).
   31. Ron J2 Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4635675)
#28 It's probably true that the current generation couldn't add a bunch of muscle mass. But the guys playing before the mid 90s were actively discouraged from any form of strength training on the way up.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can add Nelson Simmons to any list of guys whose career was damaged by bulking up.
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4635677)
Sometimes, I just want to ask...do you even lift bro?

Why would I lift weights? They're heavy.
   33. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4635684)
Why would I lift weights? They're heavy.

Holy shit. I think snapper just posted the first inarguable statement in the history of the internet. snapper of all people! This is a day that will be remembered.
   34. The Good Face Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4635696)
#28 It's probably true that the current generation couldn't add a bunch of muscle mass. But the guys playing before the mid 90s were actively discouraged from any form of strength training on the way up.


But it wasn't just that they added a lot of muscle; it was that they added a great deal of muscle mass in a very short period while at the same time reducing their bodyfat. A young man who's never really lifted can pack on a lot of muscle pretty quickly if he focuses on squats, deadlifts, presses, etc. and eats properly. However, he's also going to put on a considerable amount of fat in the process. That's fine, once you have the muscle, you can then take your time to cut the fat. But in the height of the "steroid era," guys were putting on 25+ pounds of muscle over 6 months AND showing up ripped, with washboard abs, defined beach muscles, etc. You can pack on the beef in the short term or you can get ripped, but it's almost impossible to do both at the same time without chemical help. Building muscle without adding bodyfat takes time.
   35. JE (Jason) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4635741)
There are a lot of folks here who have no idea what they're talking about with respect to weight training, but as a general rule, a strong, athletic 180lb guy cannot add 30 pounds of lean muscle in 6 months without chemical help. A good buddy of mine is an amateur bodybuilder who does not use steroids, HGH, etc. I watched him go from a skinny 6'1, 140lbs to ~200 pounds of sculpted muscle and it took over 5 years. Everybody's body is different, and some folks have the genetics that allow them to pile muscle on faster than others, but some of the gains ballplayers have reported/shown up with are pretty suspicious.

How effective is creatine? (I remember the Grantland story including McGwire's enthusiastic endorsement.)
   36. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4635748)
How effective is creatine?


It helps, but you still need to lift the weights to get any benefit.
   37. Ron J2 Posted: January 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4635749)
#35 It was among the things included in the documentary "High Performance". Did nothing, but there were only a few participants using it.

I think the general consensus is "snake oil". Some anecdotes (as noted here) but no evidence that it does anything meaningful.
   38. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4635761)
I watched him go from a skinny 6'1, 140lbs to ~200 pounds of sculpted muscle and it took over 5 years.


It's gonna take 5 YEARS?!?!? Granted, I'm 6'2", more like 160-165 (140 in college, and mostly good weight added since then), and have no desire whatsoever to look like a bodybuilder, but just to be something other than skinny.... I figured more like 2!
   39. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4635766)
Mayo Clinic says creatine is effective at building muscle.

The National Institute of Health says it is "possibly effective" at helping with high-intensity athletics.

I think the consensus is is probably works, but results may vary, and yea, you need to lift weights to have any benefit of course.
   40. The Good Face Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4635767)
How effective is creatine? (I remember the Grantland story including McGwire's enthusiastic endorsement.)


As per #37, tough to say. I've used it and will probably use it again, and it seems to help, but placebo effect? I dunno. There's some evidence that it contributes to muscular swelling/water retention, which makes you LOOK more buff, but doesn't actually make you any stronger, which could explain why so many people like it/use it (OMG, look how jacked I am!). The only supplements I'm positive really work are the amps; pre-workout stimulants that get you, well, amped up. S'why I laugh when people poo-poo amps as a PED.
   41. Brian Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4635769)
A good buddy of mine is an amateur bodybuilder who does not use steroids, HGH, etc. I watched him go from a skinny 6'1, 140lbs to ~200 pounds of sculpted muscle and it took over 5 years.


GF, what age was he at the start of those 5 years? From what I've seen it helps to be in the 18-20 ages to start. Then you can really make a difference in a short time but, as you say, it does come with a bit of fat growth too.
   42. The Good Face Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4635774)
It's gonna take 5 YEARS?!?!? Granted, I'm 6'2", more like 160-165 (140 in college, and mostly good weight added since then), and have no desire whatsoever to look like a bodybuilder, but just to be something other than skinny.... I figured more like 2!


Well, he gained all his weight without ever really putting on any excess fat. It's slower that way. Also, the last 10-15 pounds are the toughest.

If you don't want to be a 200lb slab of muscle with very low body fat, no, it shouldn't take you 5 years to get past skinny.
   43. The Good Face Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4635776)
GF, what age was he at the start of those 5 years? From what I've seen it helps to be in the 18-20 ages to start. Then you can really make a difference in a short time but, as you say, it does come with a bit of fat growth too.


Good point, he was already in his late 20s when he got really serious about weight training. The earlier you start, the better if you're looking to put on muscle. I'm a lot less suspicious of a 19 or 20 year old who puts on a ton of muscle as opposed to a guy who's 28+.
   44. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4635777)
My wife gained 40 points in like 9 months.
   45. spycake Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4635784)
all of the chatter around sierra and correa was because they LOOKED physically different

I had never heard of Ed Correa before this thread (only started following MLB in 1990). 20 year old with 202 IP and 102 ERA+ and 8.4 K/9 (albeit 5.6 BB/9 too) -- surprised he didn't receive a single ROY vote in 1986. Sierra got one for his 107 OPS+ in 2/3 of a season as a corner OF, also his age 20 season (actually 6 months older than Correa).

Obviously his 4.23 ERA and 12-14 record weren't that attractive at the time, but still.
   46. ThickieDon Posted: January 10, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4635805)
#12 says Sierra's bat speed slowed after he "roided" (non-witch hunter translation: got bigger).

I guess we should start calling them Performance Reducing Drugs. Would they still be bad?
   47. AROM Posted: January 10, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4635824)
So much of this depends on body type. I tried to get past skinny (6'3, roughly 140-150) from the time I was in high school through college. Could not gain anything no matter what I ate. I used to go to one of those all-you-can-eat buffets with a friend who weight about 300. I had no trouble out-eating him.

A few years after college, gaining weight all of a sudden became easy. I got up to 190 without trying, and now have to watch what I eat to stay there.

How effective is creatine?


Tried it once. It made me poop funny. Through the rest in the trash and never tried it again.

   48. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4635825)
My own experience with weightlifting -- I gained about 40 lbs., went from 5'11, 135 to about 175 after I began lifting weights, but I was in that 18-24 age range and I probably would have filled out a bit anyway. I've never been able to gain a pound over 175 since then, so there's only so much that I would attribute to the lifting. I didn't have washboard abs or look anything like a bodybuilder, I just looked more like a normal human being than when I was thin as a rail. It wasn't until I became more systematic about lifting and started doing serious cardio in my early 30s that I started to look "ripped"--but that entailed losing 10 lbs., not gaining weight. I've never used supplements; at most I drank protein shakes. I've gone through times when I ate like crap, times when I was a strict vegetarian, and many points in between, and while my diet affected my cholesterol, the only thing that impacted my weight or appearance was the type and frequency of workouts I was doing.

Living with my wife, who often works out and eats like I do, I know that my experience is my own only, and that everyone's body processes food and exercise differently. I've been smoked by guys (and girls) in triathlons who looked like they had no business on the course. So much of this is genetic and specific to the individual, so I'm hesitant of giving people advice about diet or weight loss, or trying to draw conclusions about a person based on their appearance. (My advice is usually to try to get healthier/stronger/more fit, not to focus on getting thinner or losing weight.)

Yes, based on my own experience I'm skeptical that a professional athlete in their late 20s or 30s can gain 30 lbs. of muscle in an offseason, but I'm also skeptical of the reports claiming that's actually what happened. And these guys are already freaks of nature in many ways -- they already do things that I would have thought were physically impossible -- so I'm wary of saying what they can or can't achieve "naturally".
   49. AROM Posted: January 10, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4635828)
I guess we should start calling them Performance Reducing Drugs. Would they still be bad?


See above, compare Ruben's career trajectory to Dave "Cocaine is a hell of a drug" Parker. It could be that a few people have withheld HOF votes from Parker over that, same with guys like Hernandez, Raines and Molitor. But very few, probably 1-2% of voters.
   50. The Good Face Posted: January 10, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4635837)
I've been smoked by guys (and girls) in triathlons who looked like they had no business on the course. So much of this is genetic and specific to the individual, so I'm hesitant of giving people advice about diet or weight loss, or trying to draw conclusions about a person based on their appearance. (My advice is usually to try to get healthier/stronger/more fit, not to focus on getting thinner or losing weight.)


Cardiovascular capability can't really be judged by appearances very well. There are some heavy-bodied folks out there who can run all day and all night without getting tired, and there are some buff/skinny people who'd collapse if they ran more than a mile. A friend of mine is a female, about 5'5, 150lbs, bottom heavy, although not really fat. She's completed marathons and triathlons, and will casually go on brisk 5-8 mile runs in hilly country at the drop of a hat. But she's just kind of a dumpy, moderately overweight woman at first glance. Then there was this guy, who'd get completely winded sprinting 60 yards or so.
   51. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4635846)
Then there was this guy,


But what a glorious sprint to the ring it was. I wonder if he'll really be there to do it at WM 30?

***

I once had occasion to meet Warrior, and I asked him point blank if he ever used. His fame was at a nadir at that point (2004), and I think his answer was honest. He was naturally a big guy, and he took to the gym like a fish to water. However, everybody's got a genetic cap, and his was around 290-300lbs. He was big and he looked good, but he wanted to be elite, so he took steroids to overcome his natural limitations. He also worked his ass off. He wound up being 275 lbs at his peak, and leaner than he ever dreamed of being before. We also talked about Nietzsche (hey, I was a freshman!)

Very nice, very interesting, utterly batshit crazy guy.

   52. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 10, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4635901)
My wife gained 40 points in like 9 months.


IQ or batting average?
   53. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: January 10, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4635997)
The link in #50 is hilarious. If you had a million guesses to name the source of the picture, would anyone have picked a youth ministry blog?
   54. Morty Causa Posted: January 10, 2014 at 08:15 PM (#4636042)
My wife gained 40 points in like 9 months.

All muscle, too, I bet.
   55. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: January 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4636257)
To expand on my original post...

1. I think the news media and fans alike are too willing to read a story that "Player X put on 30 pounds of muscle" and take that as face value. I agree that putting on 30 pounds on muscle in a 4-5 month period would be extremely difficult/nigh impossible. However, using the eye test...these guys often don't LOOK like they've put on 30 pounds of muscle, what they often look like is Player X has cut fat or Player X has bulked up...and it gets exaggerated as 30 pounds of muscle. Given the fact that we know that teams are loathe to release/change player weights once guys hit the big leagues it amazes me that we reach a point of taking offseason muscle gain of X pounds at face value. In addition, I think a lot of times you probably have lazy journalists looking at weight the player made the majors at and comparing it to weight the player claims to be at the moment.

2. There are very few baseball players with bodies that are what I, or anyone I lift with, would define as great/exceptional. Someone made a comment about washboard abs above and on another thread I think I saw someone comment that Nomar's SI cover is a steroid red flag (or something along those lines) and it baffles me because, generally speaking, baseball bodies aren't that impressive. If everyone looked like Gabe Kapler, sure, I would get the LOOK AT THEM suspicion, but I really don't think these guys bodies are so impressive that it leaves me wondering whether they could achieve it naturally.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3257 - 11:16am, Oct 23)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogNo, Ned Yost didn’t “out-manage” Bruce Bochy. His players played better | HardballTalk
(1 - 11:16am, Oct 23)
Last: Chris Fluit

Newsblog‘Marlins Man’ puts Miami front and center at World Series | The Miami Herald
(7 - 11:16am, Oct 23)
Last: Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude

NewsblogMartino: Michael Cuddyer is a perfect free agent fit for NY Mets, who like him
(9 - 11:15am, Oct 23)
Last: Brian

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(875 - 11:15am, Oct 23)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(4 - 11:15am, Oct 23)
Last: Topher

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(858 - 11:09am, Oct 23)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(34 - 11:08am, Oct 23)
Last: Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc

NewsblogSalvador Perez, Hunter Strickland Exchange Words In World Series (GIF) | MLB | NESN.com
(8 - 11:07am, Oct 23)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(17 - 10:55am, Oct 23)
Last: AROM

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(23 - 10:10am, Oct 23)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(7 - 10:00am, Oct 23)
Last: steagles

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(183 - 8:19am, Oct 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(66 - 7:12am, Oct 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(6 - 6:54am, Oct 23)
Last: cv2002

Page rendered in 0.7104 seconds
53 querie(s) executed